It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
For the first question, I think no. I think the concierge just assumes that they're married. I think the conversation Bond and Madeleine have before everything goes south alludes to this... As he's questioning what he has to do to make sure that they have a future together which would be a strange thing to ask if they were already married :).
The OHMSS nods were a clever red herring, but since we were past that point by the ending, I’d have liked a cut to black following “his name was”, and then You Know My Name over the credits. Bring things full circle.
“We’ll have you eviscerated by missiles, that’ll work.”
Oh, how you underestimate some Bond fans.
@matt_u the OHMSS foreshadowing is interesting. As I mentioned previously, a friend of mine came to the conclusion Bond was done for by the titles. I feel like everyone interpreted it differently.
Bond lives through every book, and lived through every one of the previous 24 films - not always happily ever after, but he went on.
I get that in this one they were trying to 'make a statement' or 'subvert the character', etc. but it honestly feels like what they were really tying to do is pander to the critics and maybe win an award or two rather than craft a film for fans of the world Fleming created.
Everything about the movie, even Lieter's death if you like, I thought was brilliantly done (maybe they could have spent a bit of time on Safin, but honestly, I didn't really find that so bad while I was watching it) and I don't think it would have cheapened the film to avoid that final infecting of Bond with Heracles and have him make it off the island - maybe horribly injured, but make it off, rather than snuff him out - allow him to endure in some way beyond a story told by Madeline to Matilde.
Killing him off (if that's what they did - per my previous post I think there's still a door open) almost feels like it taints every one of Daniel Craig's movies - knowing its all building to such a grim and final fate, for the first time in the Bond universe.
I feel like with Casino Royale they created almost a perfect Bond film, and then the next three movies chipped away at that feeling slowly but surely, with confused plots and darker and darker themes and atmosphere. Then, the first 2 hours of No Time to Die started to bring that feeling back, like there was hope for Bond and he was going to find some sort of peace after all of that, and then the last 15 minutes of the film hit that feeling with a freaking sledge hammer. And look - I understand that that emotional roller coaster, from the point of view of the creatives behind the movie, is the point. But honestly, if they'd gone the other direction maybe the critics would have moaned a bit more, but I'd be here saying it was one of the all time greats, and I suspect I'm not alone.
I myself expected everything that happens in this film back in 2008 in Quantum Of Solace.
I thought back then the only way to top Casino Royale was to bring back SPECTRE, include the Garden Of Death, and Kill Bond at the end. (If you dig on another forum, it was all there in posts in 2008).
I agree the 3 other films chipped away the feel of elation watching CR. Though I like some parts of them, they don't feel like full films like CR and NTTD do. It's a great thing they Kill 007 at the end, because it's pure Fleming. It's 200% in Fleming's ballpark.
I have one question though, it looks like Paul Haggis was involved back in early 2018 in a draft of NTTD. However, I remember he pushed in QOS for a child to be part of the film, I think it was supposed to be Vesper's child.
Could it be they recycled the idea from that early QOS draft, and they asked Haggis for a slight rewrite/polish/treatment of that draft?
FRWL was the closest. He wanted to give himself the option to walk away.
Of course he's back in top form in the next novel, and his recovery mentioned, though the ending made it appear he was really dead.
The same twist happens in YOLT, though he is to us shown still alive, for the world he is dead, apparently killed in the explosion of the island of the garden of death. The film is very close to this, only they use the FRWL thing of finishing it for good, end of story, will he return?
Find the answer at the end of the credits scroll.
Actually, it's probably the first time they managed to get a post-credit scene in, Marvel style, using something we have seen there countless time already.
In No Time To Die, it appears more final that he's really dead - though I agree there is enough to question given the similarities to YOLT (see previous post). I guess maybe the change is that in this case, the audience is in the same boat as M, Q, Moneypenny, etc. and the rest of the world - we all think he's dead, and maybe he is, maybe he's not.
No, you're indeed not allone.
I feel exactly the same nearly 3 weeks after the most dreadful experience i ever had in a cinema. Speaking of the ending, not the whole movie.
Agree its close - but I don't think Fleming made it as clear in that novel as they may have done in the NTTD.
Definitely. The film is categorical. The novel never explicitly states Bond is dead.
Thanks mate. It really took me by surprise on first viewing, especially with all the OHMSS nods.
I saw it being similar to Quantum when Fields is referred to as Bond's wife
I'd argue that he did find peace after all that. For a fleeting moment in Norway. Which is why, though heart-wrenchingly tragic, he died content.
The more I think about this, the more comfortable I become with NTTD, so thanks @Stamper . You are correct, FRWL does leave the reader wondering - maybe this is no different. I need to get back to the theatre and see it again but certainly having Bond on the knife-edge of life/death isn't new. Maybe this is just the farthest the envelope has been pushed.
Agreed.
After some time has passed, I don't think it'll be in my top 5 or anything. But it's still somewhat above average.
The movie.
Have you guys ever watched Nolan's Batman and Burton's Batman? Think that... I'm not sure how many times people have explained this now :(.
You're just going to give yourself a headache if you ponder it any differently. Just take everything at face value. It's easier that way.
It's new territory and I'm not at all disappointed. Time for reinvention! \:D/
I honestly don’t think they were pandering to anyone but themselves. I think they did it because they thought it’d be a thematically solid end to this era, that’s part of why I had a lot of respect for how they handled it. It seemed like a natural end to me, rather than something they did for the sake of shock value. Bond becomes the literal embodiment of ruining everything he touches (all those dead women and allies), so he has to sacrifice himself to give his kid the chance that he, Madeline, and a bunch of his baddies never had (by ensuring Madeline survives to raise her). Bond’s inability to have a normal life because of the baggage he carries from the spy world, ruined childhoods leading to more messed up recruits. I thought it all came together really well, and I think they did it because it was fitting, rather than for the sake of subversion.
As for deviating from Fleming, this may be controversial, but I honestly don’t see the source material as the be all and end all. The series never would’ve survived if they’d just stuck to the books, and he died over half a century ago. Bond would be public domain in a few years if it wasn’t for the interests of certain mega corporations, and then anyone could do anything they wanted with it. I think when a story lasts this long, and becomes this sort of cultural lightning rod, you’ve got to expect change and different takes on it. As long as the essence of the character is still there, I don’t mind them pushing Bond into new places, personally. I always imagined Bond dying eventually anyway (there’s that bit in MR, about not expecting to live to mandatory retirement age) so I had no problem seeing it myself.
In hindsight maybe they shouldn't have shown us the over the shoulder shot from Bond's perspective, that was perhaps a step too far for some
Hahaha, yeah, I know... But we all can dream about that :P
I would be inclined to agree if it wasn't a trend in Hollywood to kill off heroic male characters to subvert expectations, but it is. They did it with Luke Skywalker, Wolverine, and John Connor, and every single one of them was noticeably replaced by a younger female character, and Bond has followed suit with NTTD. So, I do think this is only meant to subvert and nothing more.
The theme of survival has always been a staple of the Bond series. Part of Bond's appeal was that he always found a way out. To suddenly go back on this, particularly at a time when Hollywood is obsessed with subversion and shock deaths, reeks of trend-chasing. And the Craig era has unfortunately been the least trend-setting and most trend-chasing Bond era of them all, even moreso than Moore's.
He will! I've been thinking over the film and making a few notes. I hope to post them later today.
I think it’s a bit much to call survival a theme of the series. Most Bond films don’t really have themes, they were just going for escapism. Which is why he always survived.
The Craig era has gone for something a bit “deeper” (hate that word, sounds very pretentious, but I wasn’t sure how else to put it) and has heavily focused on themes and character beats, even at the expense of plot at times. And all of that seemed geared towards Bond dying to me, some of us had been predicting it for a while. It’s fine not to like it, but I don’t think you can dismiss all that forshadowing and accuse them of chasing trends just because you’ve seen some films recently with character deaths.
I haven’t seen Star Wars, but Bond’s death was nothing like John Connor’s imo. One was a sudden shock at the start of the film, a contrived way of continuing a story that should’ve been left in the past. While the other was the conclusion to a story that needed a closed off ending, and had made clear that Bond can never have a normal life.
As for being replaced by a female character, Bond hasn’t been really, they’ll just reboot it next time (not sure there’s any anti-male agenda in the other examples either, it’s just your standard “passing of the torch” idea, which we see a lot of because Hollywood loves milking a franchise, coinciding with women getting more roles in action films lately).